I was not pushing a True Scotsman scenario, I was just pointing out that situations involving a women being alone in a private place with a strange Lesbian is not a gender swapped analog of being alone with a man. And that rape does not by necessity indicate sexual preference.

You know, pointing out important nuances that just might fly past you.

The point, though, is that in an equal society violent acts of power would not evoke gender dynamics and would be equally distributed.

That's not really something I consider worth achieving.

A violent act of power is a violent act of power and should be condemned as such, regardless of who is doing it. I'm not sure that a world where violent acts of power are still commonplace, but are being committed by men and women alike is really ideal.

Unless you think voting for Sarah Palin might balance out the power dynamics?

A violent act of power is a violent act of power and should be condemned as such, regardless of who is doing it. I'm not sure that a world where violent acts of power are still commonplace, but are being committed by men and women alike is really ideal.

Do you actually think I was disagreeing with this? One utopia at a time, msg.

I was not pushing a True Scotsman scenario, I was just pointing out that situations involving a women being alone in a private place with a strange Lesbian is not a gender swapped analog of being alone with a man. And that rape does not by necessity indicate sexual preference.

You know, pointing out important nuances that just might fly past you.

So you meant to say that a woman who rapes woman isn't necessarily a lesbian, not that she isn't a lesbian (Because of nuance, apparently). Excellent, one gone, 4 to go. Should I now be optimistic on you clearing the other "misunderstandings"?

I know what you mean, it was a battlezone. I spent a year there before I realized that I was not an INTP.

I don't know if it's so much that I'm not an INTP. I think it's the fact that I'm a believer in doing things about problems rather than wallowing about how horrible the world/everyone else is all the time. I also don't believe in tolerating bullying behavior, and I called that out when I saw it; which I suppose caused some people to doubt my "authenticity." Also, I had some opinions on some topics that disagreed with the "progressive" (really just Commie bullshit) circlejerk, so I think that also played a role. Furthermore, I had a tendency to go on tangents, like I'm engaging in now, which also rubbed people the wrong way.

A well-intentioned person assured me that the new site would be different, but, with the way the mods and administrators are running things, it is evident that it will not be. It was evident they didn't want me to do anything specific, they just wanted an excuse to get me out of there. The demands were constantly changing and were frequently inconsistent with each other. For example, the told me to report posts that I felt were trolly, rather than taking the matter into my own hands and deal with them on my own terms. When I did so, the reaction was as if I was the one causing the disturbance for simply reporting it, and that I was "equally contributing" to the problem despite the fact that I did not engage with them, because I was told not to. I pointed out that I did exactly what they told me to do, and I explained that the reason I did not do so in previous instances was that I thought they would act in exactly this manner. This, evidently, warranted a ban until October.

I probably will not return when my ban is up.

Nobody could point to an actual rule I had broken, just that I'd been "skirting the line" and that they'd know it when they saw it. That smelled like B.S. I wasn't a rule-breaker or even a prime generator of conflict, I was just an undesirable.